[disco_owner]

My Most used lens these Days is the 18-135 WR Kit lens , I can get it wide enough to do my landscapes and seacapes shots , I also do a lot of Long Exposure mainly early in Morning or at Dusk. and the latter is the Da15 ltd .

---

Last edited by disco_owner; 07-22-2012 at 12:03 AM.

[arv]

DA 35mm Ltd at home, DA 21mm for travels. However DA 35mm Ltd. output is more pleasing. Usually keep near something longer for portraits, and zooms come into play just couple times per year.

Talking about cats... (DA 35mm Ltd.)
Attachment 135378

A.

[JPT]

I guess the answer for me is the FA 35mm f2. It works great on all of my cameras and many of my favorite shots have come from it. I just find it a very useful focal length and it has not real weaknesses optically. But I'm also a big fan of the FA 24-90 f3.5-4.5. Both of these lenses are very versatile and will work well on APS-C or film.

I really think Pentax should make a new DFA WR version of the 24-90 with a focusing motor. It would be a great mid-range zoom even if they never make a full frame camera.

[Kerrowdown]

What lens really works best for you?

Being brutally honest I guess the answer from me is, the lenses I use most to pay the bills.

But I have noticed over the last few years that this has in fact changed. This is either due to my shooting style, the opportunities or situations that arise or indeed what is being asked of me in terms of brief, has resulted in a totally different lens profile usage. Basically I'm going away from the longer end i.e. 200, 135, 85 mm etc down to 50, 24, 15 mm and that's not just in APS-C format but also in FF format too.

Maybe after all the years I have become more relaxed about being "up close and personal" or to quote what I believe is attributed to Robert Capa “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”

[8540tomg]

Good question Wildman

For me it has to be the lens I use most often and the one I consistently go out the door with is the M 400/5.6. It is unlikely this lens will be on any other list but I like it. It is my go to birding lens for the simple reason it is my longest lens. CA/PF issues, no AF or AE doesn't make it a very attractive choice but it gets me close and I have a lot of fun with it.











I suppose because I use it the most it is no surprise most of my favourite images come from this optic.

Tom G

[jimr-pdx]

My standard for this has to be keeper ratio - of the shots I take with any lens which impresses me most consistently? And that's the Rikenon-P 28mm f/2.8, my $35 all-manual sharpshooter. It's a bit more work to get the shot, but it has never let me down; I've taken uninspired shots with it like with all lenses, but the images themselves are always excellent. I could ask no more of any lens.

[Marc Sabatella]

Overall, I'd say DA15. I could easily use just this and be pretty happy. Except for my concert photography, where I'd have a hard time choosing between my DA70, M100/2.8, and M120/2.8.

[Blue]

If someone put a .44 mag to my head and said "Go Ahead Punk, Make My Day and Pick Just One Lens and Body" it would be the DA 35/2.8 LTD on the K-5. And that is about what it would take to force me to make such a pick.

[wildman]

If someone put a .44 mag to my head and said "Go Ahead Punk, Make My Day and Pick Just One Lens and Body" it would be the DA 35/2.8 LTD on the K-5. And that is about what it would take to force me to make such a pick.

I think some folks may be misunderstanding the original question:

I wasn't asking anyone to make some abstract judgement about what they thought was their best lens.


For example: If you took your 100 best pictures and you found that 40 of them were taken by the kit lens and your beloved $800 Limited was a distant second at only, say, 15, perhaps you ought to rethink how you actually use your gear and what really works and what doesn't based on the actual empirical evidence of the images produced by your various lens'.

Some may find no such difference or that what lens they use depends upon the purpose at hand - fair enough. If you shot a lot of macro the macro lens will "win" of course.

In my case, however, before I carefully checked out which lens was actually used on which pictures I would not have predicted that the modest little FA35 produced so many of my first rate images. I'm still thinking about why this is so.

One conclusion I have come to - I like natural light and the FA35 is excellent wide open:
Yes yet another cat pic...
FA35, F2, 1/30s, ISO 3200, K20D

[gilsouthwood]

Quite possibly my K 55mm f2. It's done wonders for me, but my oh mighty, you have to work for that lens. Although, either it's the dodgy white balance on a K-r, or I can never get nicely vibrant colours… All my pictures seem a dab washed out. It can, with some portraits, work out, especially with older, yellowy lighting, but when you are looking for flowers…

I have to say, though, with a slightly too long exposure in M mode on the camera, that lens produces dreams. I love it. But it's battered

[aurele]

Quite possibly my K 55mm f2. It's done wonders for me, but my oh mighty, you have to work for that lens. Although, either it's the dodgy white balance on a K-r, or I can never get nicely vibrant colours… All my pictures seem a dab washed out. It can, with some portraits, work out, especially with older, yellowy lighting, but when you are looking for flowers…

do you shoot RAW ? because RAW colors seems always washed.

If you shoot JPEG, maybe change the color rendering from natural to vibrant ?

***
For digital :

My lens that work best is without any doubt the 18-55. Mainly because when i go doing some trek / climbing / mountaineering / i don't fear to broke this cheap lens ! i can find it for 30 bucks, so i don't ask myself any further question.

The second is on par the DA*55 and the DA 40.
I use the DA*55 in nightime, the DA 40 is evening. I absolutely love both rendering.


For film :
First the FA-J 18-35. I love that wideness

second, on par, the DA(L) 35/2.4 and the DA*55.
the two basic FL, and two absolute must have the color rendering are super-saturated, and the bokeh is really awesome.

[Blue]

I think some folks may be misunderstanding the original question:

I wasn't asking anyone to make some abstract judgement about what they thought was their best lens.


For example: If you took your 100 best pictures and you found that 40 of them were taken by the kit lens and your beloved $800 Limited was a distant second at only, say, 15, perhaps you ought to rethink how you actually use your gear and what really works and what doesn't based on the actual empirical evidence of the images produced by your various lens'.

Some may find no such difference or that what lens they use depends upon the purpose at hand - fair enough. If you shot a lot of macro the macro lens will "win" of course.

In my case, however, before I carefully checked out which lens was actually used on which pictures I would not have predicted that the modest little FA35 produced so many of my first rate images. I'm still thinking about why this is so.

One conclusion I have come to - I like natural light and the FA35 is excellent wide open:
Yes yet another cat pic...
FA35, F2, 1/30s, ISO 3200, K20D

I understood the question and that is why I picked the lens I did. I have used it as a regular lens with good results and I have used it for macro 1:1 with good results even on insects. It isn't my most expensive lens.

[snake]

I agree with Wildman on the FA35 (never expected this would become an FA35 thread). Although it seems to front focus in low light, I still get wonderful shots from it. It's been a joy to work on a "color photojournalism" style, rather than using black and white for street shooting. I almost got an FA43, hoping to split the difference between a 35 and a 50 and use it as my only lens, but things didn't work out. However, I don't feel I'm missing anything being on the 35. Maybe size, but it's not a huge difference. Here's an example of the FA35:



With the F50 1.7:

[writerman]

Has the gap closed to the point that the limited primes really don't provide any real world advantage in prints up to 13X19?

[gilsouthwood]

Meh. I've never tried any of Pentax's current primes, but if they're anything like those of 30 years ago then they must be good. Having now had my Chinon 200mm f3.5 fixed to my camera thanks to a stuck M42 adapter, I'm starting to love it a lot. Sharp as hell from f5.6, yet, if you need it, acceptably sharp at 3.5. Next to nothing of CA and an awesome bokeh. All yours for £10!!

The aperture down at f20 actually darkens the viewfinder too, which I find interesting, but, yea, I love it. Easy enough for handheld too, and with the crop factor, I can't find anything wrong with it at all...